The Impact of Fuel Thinning on the Microclimate in Coastal Rainforest Stands of Southwestern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prescriptions for fuel management are universally applied across the forest types in British Columbia, Canada, to reduce the fire behaviour potential in the wildland–urban interface. Fuel thinning treatments have been advocated as a means of minimizing the likelihood of crown fire development in conifer forests. We hypothesized that these types of prescriptions are inappropriate for the coastal rainforests of the Whistler region of the province. Our study examined the impact of fuel thinning treatments in four stands located in the Whistler community forest. We measured several in-stand microclimatic variables beginning with snow melt in the spring up to the height of fire danger in late summer, at paired thinned and unthinned stand locations. We found that the thinning led to warmer, drier, and windier fire environments. The difference in mean soil moisture, ambient air temperature, and relative humidity between thinned and unthinned stands was significant in the spring with approximate p-values of 0.000217, 9.40 × 10−5, and 4.33 × 10−8, respectively, though there were no discernible differences in the late summer. The difference in mean solar radiation, average wind speed, and average cross wind between thinned and unthinned locations are significant in the spring and late summer (with approximate p-values for spring of 9.54 × 10−7, 0.02101, 1.92 × 10−9, and for late summer of 2.45 × 10−7, 4.08 × 10−6, and 2.45 × 10−5, respectively).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".